Justice Department

Students often confuse the Attorney General's role as purely legal. While they are the chief law enforcement officer and advise the President on legal matters, the appointment is highly political, requiring Senate confirmation. MCQs often present scenarios where the Attorney General acts independently of the President's policy agenda, which is rarely the case in practice.

Before 1870, the US lacked a centralized, powerful legal arm. The Attorney General was a part-time position. The DOJ's creation addressed the need for uniform federal law enforcement, especially concerning civil rights during Reconstruction, and to combat the rise of organized crime that individual states struggled to handle effectively.

The Attorney General heads the entire Justice Department and advises the President on legal matters. The Solicitor General, a subordinate within the DOJ, specifically represents the US government before the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General decides which government cases to appeal to the Supreme Court, a critical gatekeeping function.

Critics argue that the DOJ's power can be used for political purposes, especially given the Attorney General's political appointment. There are concerns about overreach in investigations and prosecutions, potentially targeting political opponents. Some propose reforms like increased independence for special counsels or stricter guidelines for politically sensitive investigations to mitigate these risks.

The Antitrust Division enforces antitrust laws to prevent monopolies and promote competition. It investigates mergers, price-fixing, and other anti-competitive practices. This is crucial for ensuring fair markets, lower prices for consumers, and greater innovation. For example, it might block a merger between two major airlines if it would lead to higher fares.

The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ enforces laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, or national origin. This directly impacts citizens by ensuring equal access to housing, employment, education, and voting rights. For example, the DOJ can sue employers who discriminate against women or minorities.

This case limited the President's ability to impose tariffs without Congressional approval. The Supreme Court ruled against the Justice Department's defense of presidential tariff powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This reduces the DOJ's power to defend unilateral presidential actions on trade.

This is a constant tension. The DOJ must investigate and prosecute national security threats like terrorism and espionage, but it must do so while respecting constitutional rights to privacy, free speech, and due process. This often involves seeking warrants for surveillance, carefully balancing the need for information with individual rights. Critics argue that post-9/11, the balance has tilted too far towards security.

In 2024, the Justice Department launched a major investigation into alleged antitrust violations in the tech industry, focusing on companies like Google and Apple. These investigations often center on concerns about monopolistic practices, data privacy, and unfair competition.

The FBI investigates a broad range of federal crimes, including terrorism and cybercrime, while the DEA focuses specifically on enforcing federal drug laws and combating drug trafficking.

Without the DOJ, enforcement of federal laws would be inconsistent and potentially weak, varying significantly by state. This could lead to unequal application of justice, particularly in areas like civil rights, environmental protection, and consumer safety. Organized crime and large-scale fraud would be harder to combat.

Attorney General testimony before Congress typically covers the DOJ's budget, priorities, and performance. Recent testimonies have focused on efforts to combat violent crime, address civil rights violations, and respond to congressional inquiries about specific investigations or policies.